Home › Forums › Decaffeinated Coffee › Is Zionism the Yetzer Hora? › Reply To: Is Zionism the Yetzer Hora?
Avi K:
I apologise for not seeing your response earlier, and yekke2, and myself on your other thread, have addressed it, but since I’d like a direct further response from yourself (I find in this kind of discussion, failing to request one invariably means you don’t get one, so no personal slight implied), I’ll make my point here clearly.
You try to quibble with the definition and application of the literal Shulchan Aruch, so, as a Torah Jew, which I assume you are, I’ll use the wider blanket term Halacha. This includes the various laws that we, as Torah Jews, adhere to on a daily basis, be it Shabbos, gneiva, toeivah, thins which have a clearer general consensus. Not that your distinction is a valid one, merely that it’s not the central issue here.
The State of Israel, as you acknowledged, does not keep to all of these. As you said, ‘Not yet’. So the honest answer to the question is No. I specifically requested a Yes/No answer in my previous posts, and suggested that if you then had to clarify, you could do so after your clear Yes/No answer, because I foresaw this kind of disingenuous response, but never mind that.
Furthermore, you wouldn’t consider a Jew who substantially kept Halacha a practising Torah Jew, you would rightly expect full adherence, which is what ‘keeping to Halacha’ means. You either do or you don’t. And you have admitted that they don’t.
And all that is even accepting that they ‘substantially’ keep to Halacha, and that they are moving in the right direction. Neither point is true. Substance is defined as a significant level, and if the Israeli Government is actively supporting toeivah and chilul Shabbos, there is obviously no substance, as it is not having a significant effect on the way the country is run. And recent moves by the Israeli Government with regard to Shabbos and conversion plainly show it is not moving in the right direction. And I haven’t even begun to address the often militantly secular nature of the State, from it’s inception through to it’s current prevailing attitudes, mainly because I don’t need to, my above points suffice.
Eagerly awaiting your response.